Am 23.01.2005 um 01:08 schrieb Tim Rowledge:
...
>  Thus we conclude that a very significant
> amount ot time is spent doing the screen freshing.
Right on, right on!

> Just to do extra checking (since my OS has to check all events in the
> getNextEvent prim to do a display update) I put another OS window over
> the are being hilberted so that the display update wouldn't be declared
> since the affected area is hidden (unlike many UIs RISC OS windows
> don't need to be at the front to be live or even have keyboard focus).
> Thus we get the event processing and the copying of pixels from the
> Squeak Dispaly to the OS backing store(with pixle reversal and RGB to
> BGR swapping) but no actual displaying. For that case I got 6055 ie
> 6sec.
On OSX your version runs in 46873 msec. If I hide squeak directly after 
starting ithe snippet, it runs in 4904 msec. So 41 of 47 seconds are 
spend in display updates.
>
> Thus I am forced to the conclusion that about 84% of my time for this
> test is being spent on moving pixels from main memory to PCI grapics
> card memory. Bugger :-(
Yup.
>
> And worse, note the subtle difference between 3% and 84%
To restate the "obvious": Squeak is fast. Or more precicely: some 
aspects of the OS-interface are  ehm sub-optimal... worth having a 
second or third look at.

regards
karsten